toxic masculinity

While it can be argued that using the phrase “toxic
masculinity” is useful, I must confess to feeling uncomfortable about the phrase.
While it would be natural to accuse me of fearing an attack on my maleness, my
concern is a pragmatic one about the consequences of the term. Which, from a
utilitarian standpoint, also makes it a moral one.

As a man, I am familiar with how some other men react to the phrase “toxic masculinity.” The reaction of the truly toxic (that is, evil) males is to be expected—they are outraged that their misdeeds and moral flaws are being challenged. However, non-toxic males can also react negatively to the phrase—typically because they feel that those who use the phrase are applying it to all men. That is, they are saying that all men are bad and routinely engage in such things as bullying, sexual harassment and worse. While some do hold to that position (that all men are evil), this is not the usual use of the term. After all, one might point out, if masculinity itself was seen as evil, it would be pointless to talk about toxic masculinity. Doing so would be analogous to speaking of toxic toxins. As such, defenders of the phrase “toxic masculinity” can say it is like saying “contaminated spinach”: this is not claiming that all spinach is contaminated, just the spinach that is contaminated. Likewise, saying “toxic masculinity” is not claiming that all masculinity is toxic, just the toxic variety.

This does have considerable appeal and when a
critic of toxic masculinity uses the phrase in this manner, one might be able
to sort out their intent. That said, the use of the phrase can still trigger an
angry response from non-toxic men and trying to argue about the intent of the
term often fails. After all, when people are angry and feel attacked, they
rarely pause for a philosophical analysis of the perceived attack. As such,
using the phrase can have the negative consequence of alienating and angering
men who would otherwise support the idea that men should behave well. It can
also cause men that might be persuaded to change to double down on their views.
As such, there is a pragmatic problem with the phrase.

One reply to this would be to argue that only weak
snowflakes and bad men would be angered by the phrase. The snowflakes should “man
up” and it is fine that the bad men are angry—they are, after all, being
attacked for being evil and the evil hate that. While this does have some appeal,
it is still worth considering how non-toxic (or “curable”) men might feel about
the phrase and whether another approach might be better.

Consider, if you will, if the term “toxic” was used
to refer to various groups who have some members who behave badly and have vices
(which would be all groups other than the group of the morally perfect). To illustrate,
consider the phrases “toxic blackness”, “toxic hispanicness”, “toxic homosexuality”,
“toxic transgenderism”, “toxic feminism” and so on. If someone did a Youtube
video or appeared on TV talking about “toxic blackness” or “toxic homosexuality”
while insisting that they were only concerned about blacks or homosexuals who
behaved badly and not attacking blacks or homosexuals in general, they would
presumably be met with skepticism and outrage by many who use the phrase “toxic
masculinity.” Even if the person was completely sincere and carefully argued
that their concern was with the toxic members of said groups and not with the other
members, then they would most likely still be doubted and attacked.

The obvious reply would be to argue that “toxic
blackness”, “toxic homosexuality” and such differ from “toxic masculinity.”
While such a case can be made, it does seem reasonable to consider that just as
many would find “toxic blackness” and “toxic homosexuality” offensive, many
non-toxic men feel that “toxic masculinity” is offensive and using the term
might have negative consequences that outweigh the positive value of using the
term.

From a pragmatic standpoint, that is the key
concern: does the use of the phrase “toxic masculinity” create more harm than
good in terms of persuading men to behave better? If so, the next concern would
be sorting out what would be a better approach.

While I am aware of the nuances of the phrase
“toxic masculinity”, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the concept. At this
point, some might believe that my discomfort is because I am a man and thus feel
threatened by any questioning of my male privilege. However, this is not the
case—I can distinguish between criticisms of bad behavior by males and general
attacks on males simply for being male. My lack of comfort with the concept
stems from two main sources. The first is my approach to ethics and the second
arises from pragmatic considerations. I will look at the first in this essay
and the second in the essay that follows.

While this oversimplifies things considerably, I
approach ethics in terms of universal principles. One implication of this
approach is that I hold that if something is wrong to do, then it is wrong for
anyone to do. I am, of course, aware of the principle of relevant difference:
that a difference in treatment or application of a principle (and so on) can be
justified by there being a difference that warrants the variation in the
treatment or application. For example, some argue that while it is wrong for
members of one ethnicity to “put on the face” of another ethnicity, there are
exceptions. One illustration is that is acceptable for Michael
Che to “go undercover” as a white female liberal, but the idea
of Colin Jost going undercover as a black girl is utterly unacceptable.
The moral justification for this rests on the relevant differences between a
black man putting on “white face” and a white man putting on “black face.”
These differences are connected to the history of racism and power differences.
Naturally, people do disagree about whether these differences are truly
relevant, but a case can certainly be made that they are. In such cases of
relevant differences between ethnicities, it makes sense to reference ethnicity
when discussing ethics—after all, there would thus be a difference in the
ethics. The same sort of reasoning can be applied to sex or gender issues. For
example, some argue that male comedians would be sexist if they used the same
sort of humor as female comedians who do routines about the failures and defects
of men. In such cases, the ethics of a joke would thus depend on the gender or
sex of the person telling it and the target of the joke. Using these examples, it
would thus make sense to talk about toxic (immoral) white comedy or toxic
(immoral) male comedy—because the whiteness or maleness of the comic would thus
be essential to the wrongness of the comedy. But what about toxic masculinity, considered
as moral misdeeds and moral vices?

In the case of the set of moral misdeeds and vices
that are said to constitute toxic masculinity what seems to matter is the
ethics of the behavior itself, its consequences and so on—rather than on
whether the actions are predominantly done by men. To illustrate, while sexual
harassment is predominantly done by males, the moral concern is with the
wrongness of sexual harassment and its consequences. After all, while most
sexual harassment is done by men, it is not restricted to men and its wrongness
does not stem from men doing it. It is, after all, equally wrong for a female
to engage in sexual harassment. To focus on toxic masculinity would seem to
imply that the vices and moral misdeeds are wrong because they are the misdeeds
and vices of males, which would seem to be an error.

One reasonable counter is to argue that while the general
misdeeds and vices that make up the evils of toxic masculinity are not limited
to males, focusing on males make sense because males are the main offenders. Doing
so, one might argue, does not exclude focusing on similar misdeeds by females—it
is just that there are less to worry about.

Another reasonable counter is that the vices and
misdeeds of males that are grouped under the label of “toxic masculinity” are
male in character because of the masculinity part—that is, they are vices and
misdeeds that do arise from a concept of maleness and thus it is appropriate to
use the term. This certainly has considerable appeal and could counter my initial
concern. As such, in my next essay I will focus on my pragmatic concern.